yousaywut:Cpl.D: yousaywut: 4: false which is why it's called evolutionary theory or the theory of evolution. (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)

I see you've fallen for the usual creationist trap of thinking the "Theory of Evolution" means "theory" in the common useage of the word. It is not. It's a theory in the scientific method. A scientific theory isn't a guess. It's fact. A guess is a "hypothesis".

Scientific theory

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

True enough but it is still a theory in the common use of the word as well. It is the best theory we have at the moment but there are certain questions that stop it from becoming fact. Such as irreducible complexity and of course missing links. (I am not denying evolution just saying it is not yet a fact). I think it may become a fact within our lifetime or be completely disproven and become another oops in scientific history.) Make no mistake I am not a creationist I am merely skeptical of calling an unproven theory a fact.

So you agree that the special and general theories of relativity and the theory of gravity are also not facts?

yousaywut:True enough but it is still a theory in the common use of the word as well. It is the best theory we have at the moment but there are certain questions that stop it from becoming fact. Such as irreducible complexity and of course missing links. (I am not denying evolution just saying it is not yet a fact). I think it may become a fact within our lifetime or be completely disproven and become another oops in scientific history.) Make no mistake I am not a creationist I am merely skeptical of calling an unproven theory a fact.

Incorrect. Again you parrot usual creationist arguments, all dis-proven. You might not be a creationist, but it's fairly obvious that you've listened to their arguments (which have been dis-proven into oblivion an absurd amount of times.) As I noted before, a scientific theory is fact. It cannot and is not both proven and unproven. I urge you to read that wikipedia article myself and two others linked you to or at least quoted from.

HighOnCraic:cman: mjjt: USA is one of few countries that doesn't have a national educational curriculum and allows local groups like Texas Board of Ed to control syllabus.

That may be a good thing. I dont know about you, but I dont want someone from Texas to control what can or cannot be taught in my Maine schools.

With a national educational curriculum, it is unlikely that Texas would have enough influence to rewrite history books for other states. The fact that no other state has gone so far off the deep end as Texas has indicates that the rest of the country would, as a group, vote down Texas' attempt to push their agenda on other states. That's kinda the whole point of a national educational system.

There is one possible way l can see a national science curriculum being 'imposed' on the whole country over the objections of the Religious Right using State's Rights as excuse.

We are clearly moving towards on-line education, particularly in maths and science where the subjects are harder and teachers fewer. As yet there's a hole where certification needs to be, but which could be filled by either a Federal body, or by default, by an IBM or Microsoft type organization becoming the recognized authority.

Obviously it cd also lead to splintering if home school religious groups were able to set up their own 'standards' that ignored scientific method.

But there is a hope that election may be a nail in the coffin of those who think that insisting on a non-factual personal reality, actually works.

l'd like to see an approach that went something like "You can teach yr kids any beliefs you want, but the country needs people who understand and use scientific methods and rational thinking to make decisions"

sugardave:Silly Jesus: Are the losers derided for believing in their team?

Yes.

Yes. That is the point. Their team was not believable, they chose to believe in their team anyway, and they lost because of their indefensible belief in their team. So, yes, it is proper to deride the losers for believing in their team.

clambam:yousaywut: 4: false which is why it's called evolutionary theory or the theory of evolution. (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)

Pig pile on yousay!

This always bugs me. "The theory of relativity is only a theory; therefore, I deny the existence of nuclear weapons." "The germ theory of disease is only a theory; therefore, I refuse to take antibiotics when I'm ill." "The theory of gravity is only a theory; therefore, I am floating away into outer space gooooddddbbbbyyyyyeeeee..."

Actually that last one I'd like to see.

The theory of relativity is only a theory therefore neutrinos cannot exist. The rest of your reply is silly. Funny but silly. I do not deny the existance of any of these theories nor the obvious and empirical evidence of their current validity.

KrispyKritter:Facts are simple and facts are straightFacts are lazy and facts are lateFacts all come with points of viewFacts don't do what I want them toFacts just twist the truth aroundFacts are living turned inside outFacts are getting the best of themFacts are nothing on the face of thingsFacts don't stain the furnitureFacts go out and slam the doorFacts are written all over your faceFacts continue to change their shape

yousaywut:5: false Ask the kurds about that one. (whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different)

W found ZERO weapons of mass destruction. ZERO.yes, the kurds were gassed, and no, I am not going to argue the semantics of "mass destruction".but when we invaded, they had nada. our whole reason for attacking was false.

alas, maybe that question has TOO much wiggle room and would need to be replaced.

Of course, it's not only that Obama is a much bigger liar and distorter of reality, it's that the media doesn't call him on it because they're in the tank for him. If they're not helping him lie then they're actively working to give him a pass on everything he screws up.

So, basically, what you're saying is

randomjsa:'People don't reject liberal conservative ideas, they either didn't understand them or they were tricked!'

namatad:yousaywut: 5: false Ask the kurds about that one. (whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different)

W found ZERO weapons of mass destruction. ZERO.yes, the kurds were gassed, and no, I am not going to argue the semantics of "mass destruction".but when we invaded, they had nada. our whole reason for attacking was false.

alas, maybe that question has TOO much wiggle room and would need to be replaced.

How about more americans died in iraq war 2.0, than did during 9/11??

First off calm down you might pop a blood vessel. Second I was quite clear in my answer that there were no WMD's found and it is a fair assumption none around at the time of the invasion. So yes there was too much certainty put into the question to honestly answer true.

As for your question regarding 9/11 WTF dude really? Yes more americans have died as a result of the war then died on 9/11. so True

Notabunny:sugardave: Silly Jesus: Are the losers derided for believing in their team?

Yes.

Yes. That is the point. Their team was not believable, they chose to believe in their team anyway, and they lost because of their indefensible belief in their team. So, yes, it is proper to deride the losers for believing in their team.

ROFLalas, this guy really made my point. Your beliefs and understanding of facts do not change reality.

yousaywut:(we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)

the universe is irrelevant. we have sufficient information (facts) here on earth to know, without any doubt whatsoever), that evolution happens. that is a FACT. we have a large number of ideas about exactly how it happens, over how long a period of time, and some of the myriad details involved.

but the year mutation of the annual flu and drug resistant aids and TB are pretty much all the proof needed that evolution happens.

/EVEN if god is causing the mutation, that doesnt change the fact that it is evolution./unless you dont understand genetic mutation and want to pretend that it doesnt exist ...

yousaywut:namatad: yousaywut: 5: false Ask the kurds about that one. (whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different)

W found ZERO weapons of mass destruction. ZERO.yes, the kurds were gassed, and no, I am not going to argue the semantics of "mass destruction".but when we invaded, they had nada. our whole reason for attacking was false.

alas, maybe that question has TOO much wiggle room and would need to be replaced.

How about more americans died in iraq war 2.0, than did during 9/11??

First off calm down you might pop a blood vessel. Second I was quite clear in my answer that there were no WMD's found and it is a fair assumption none around at the time of the invasion. So yes there was too much certainty put into the question to honestly answer true.

As for your question regarding 9/11 WTF dude really? Yes more americans have died as a result of the war then died on 9/11. so True

Hmm. . . It kinda seems like bringing up the Kurds is a distraction when the question was obviously about whether there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. If "whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different," why bring up the Kurds at all?

yousaywut:I would love to see some folks float away it would entertaining.

That's the beauty/tragedy of the scientific 'theory' - there can be a gazzilion examples that confirm it, but it still can never be called a fact. Find but a single counterexample, and 'poof' it's gone.

HighOnCraic:yousaywut: namatad: yousaywut: 5: false Ask the kurds about that one. (whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different)

W found ZERO weapons of mass destruction. ZERO.yes, the kurds were gassed, and no, I am not going to argue the semantics of "mass destruction".but when we invaded, they had nada. our whole reason for attacking was false.

alas, maybe that question has TOO much wiggle room and would need to be replaced.

How about more americans died in iraq war 2.0, than did during 9/11??

First off calm down you might pop a blood vessel. Second I was quite clear in my answer that there were no WMD's found and it is a fair assumption none around at the time of the invasion. So yes there was too much certainty put into the question to honestly answer true.

As for your question regarding 9/11 WTF dude really? Yes more americans have died as a result of the war then died on 9/11. so True

Hmm. . . It kinda seems like bringing up the Kurds is a distraction when the question was obviously about whether there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. If "whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different," why bring up the Kurds at all?

Because the original question was whether or not there had ever been WMD's in Iraq. The time of the invasion was not in the original question.

IoSaturnalia:yousaywut: I would love to see some folks float away it would entertaining.

That's the beauty/tragedy of the scientific 'theory' - there can be a gazzilion examples that confirm it, but it still can never be called a fact. Find but a single counterexample, and 'poof' it's gone.

yes that is what I have been saying. But hey this is Fark so please feel free to insult my intelligence next time.

ROFLalas, this guy really made my point. Your beliefs and understanding of facts do not change reality.

yousaywut: (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)

the universe is irrelevant. we have sufficient information (facts) here on earth to know, without any doubt whatsoever), that evolution happens. that is a FACT. we have a large number of ideas about exactly how it happens, over how long a period of time, and some of the myriad details involved.

but the year mutation of the annual flu and drug resistant aids and TB are pretty much all the proof needed that evolution happens.

/EVEN if god is causing the mutation, that doesnt change the fact that it is evolution./unless you dont understand genetic mutation and want to pretend that it doesnt exist ...

We do have enough facts to prove micro-evolution that much is true. But until a flu germ becomes ebola or a parasite macro-evolution has not been confirmed. (that I am aware of I don't actually keep up with biology sciences so I could be mistaken).

There is a scary reverse feedback loop that has developed over the last couple decades -

1. Republicans talk non-reality, need an outlet to convince voters of this non-reality...2. Talk radio/Fox news arises to fill this need...3. Many, many voters are convinced of the non-reality...4. These voters now demand politicians that conform to the non-reality...5. Republicans now MUST double-down on the non-reality

If the only 'proof' you have of a theory is that 'all the data and evidence we have to date fit' it's still not a fact. The standard model is not a fact. General relativity is not a fact. Evolution by means of natural selection is not a fact and will never be a fact.

That doesn't mean that they are not right, and they aren't the best models we have to work with (so far). It just means that we can't 'positively' prove them.

yousaywut:True enough but it is still a theory in the common use of the word as well. It is the best theory we have at the moment but there are certain questions that stop it from becoming fact. Such as irreducible complexity and of course missing links. (I am not denying evolution just saying it is not yet a fact).

"Evolution" is a category. The facts are things like "mistakes sometimes occur when DNA is copied" or "the frequency of alleles within a gene pool can change from one generation to the next". Despite what you may think, you are denying evolution because you are still talking about obsolete and irrelevant notions such as "irreducible complexity" while the actual scientists have moved on to wondering (for example) whether paired or unpaired sections of ribosomal RNA change more quickly.

yousaywut:HighOnCraic: yousaywut: namatad: yousaywut: 5: false Ask the kurds about that one. (whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different)

W found ZERO weapons of mass destruction. ZERO.yes, the kurds were gassed, and no, I am not going to argue the semantics of "mass destruction".but when we invaded, they had nada. our whole reason for attacking was false.

alas, maybe that question has TOO much wiggle room and would need to be replaced.

How about more americans died in iraq war 2.0, than did during 9/11??

First off calm down you might pop a blood vessel. Second I was quite clear in my answer that there were no WMD's found and it is a fair assumption none around at the time of the invasion. So yes there was too much certainty put into the question to honestly answer true.

As for your question regarding 9/11 WTF dude really? Yes more americans have died as a result of the war then died on 9/11. so True

Hmm. . . It kinda seems like bringing up the Kurds is a distraction when the question was obviously about whether there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. If "whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different," why bring up the Kurds at all?

Because the original question was whether or not there had ever been WMD's in Iraq. The time of the invasion was not in the original question.

I would say most of us knew that whether there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion was implied in the question.

But just out of curiosity, if the gassing of the Kurds was evidence that Iraq had WMDs, why didn't we invade in '88?

Ivo Shandor:yousaywut: True enough but it is still a theory in the common use of the word as well. It is the best theory we have at the moment but there are certain questions that stop it from becoming fact. Such as irreducible complexity and of course missing links. (I am not denying evolution just saying it is not yet a fact).

"Evolution" is a category. The facts are things like "mistakes sometimes occur when DNA is copied" or "the frequency of alleles within a gene pool can change from one generation to the next". Despite what you may think, you are denying evolution because you are still talking about obsolete and irrelevant notions such as "irreducible complexity" while the actual scientists have moved on to wondering (for example) whether paired or unpaired sections of ribosomal RNA change more quickly.

I was citing examples off the top of my head. It has been a while since I even looked at evolution for scientific accuracy. As it seems like the best we have for a theory I just assume someone is studying it and that they are either smarter than me or just more dedicated to this subject either way it's not my area of expertise. (Not that I have an area of expertise but I am better at some things than others).

/This entire discussion does not change the fact that the original question can be argued, therefore eliminating it from the answer this question as true or be denied the right to vote as the original poster declared.

ROFLalas, this guy really made my point. Your beliefs and understanding of facts do not change reality.

yousaywut: (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)

the universe is irrelevant. we have sufficient information (facts) here on earth to know, without any doubt whatsoever), that evolution happens. that is a FACT. we have a large number of ideas about exactly how it happens, over how long a period of time, and some of the myriad details involved.

but the year mutation of the annual flu and drug resistant aids and TB are pretty much all the proof needed that evolution happens.

/EVEN if god is causing the mutation, that doesnt change the fact that it is evolution./unless you dont understand genetic mutation and want to pretend that it doesnt exist ...

We do have enough facts to prove micro-evolution that much is true. But until a flu germ becomes ebola or a parasite macro-evolution has not been confirmed. (that I am aware of I don't actually keep up with biology sciences so I could be mistaken).

You should probably shut up before you dig yourself even deeper.

Your wrong. You're being willfully obtuse and ignorant.

Your argument basically is this:

"What if 2 + 2 actually equals FIVE, and it's only SEEMED to equal 4 all these years because some invisible, undetectable force has been hiding the truth from us, and making all of our equations work even though our math was wrong!"

HighOnCraic:yousaywut: HighOnCraic: yousaywut: namatad: yousaywut: 5: false Ask the kurds about that one. (whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different)

W found ZERO weapons of mass destruction. ZERO.yes, the kurds were gassed, and no, I am not going to argue the semantics of "mass destruction".but when we invaded, they had nada. our whole reason for attacking was false.

alas, maybe that question has TOO much wiggle room and would need to be replaced.

How about more americans died in iraq war 2.0, than did during 9/11??

First off calm down you might pop a blood vessel. Second I was quite clear in my answer that there were no WMD's found and it is a fair assumption none around at the time of the invasion. So yes there was too much certainty put into the question to honestly answer true.

As for your question regarding 9/11 WTF dude really? Yes more americans have died as a result of the war then died on 9/11. so True

Hmm. . . It kinda seems like bringing up the Kurds is a distraction when the question was obviously about whether there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. If "whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different," why bring up the Kurds at all?

Because the original question was whether or not there had ever been WMD's in Iraq. The time of the invasion was not in the original question.

I would say most of us knew that whether there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion was implied in the question.

But just out of curiosity, if the gassing of the Kurds was evidence that Iraq had WMDs, why didn't we invade in '88?

Because american foreign policy is farked up? Seriously (I can only guess as I was just a kid) but my thought would be that at the time we would have been unable to gather the political will to invade a country for internal issues. (unlike Bosnia/Libya etc. and all those in between.

and Most knowing what was implied is definitely not part of the issue. I also recognized what the question was attempting to imply, however the question directly stated now or ever before so implication goes out the window and fact becomes an issue.

yousaywut:Ivo Shandor: yousaywut: True enough but it is still a theory in the common use of the word as well. It is the best theory we have at the moment but there are certain questions that stop it from becoming fact. Such as irreducible complexity and of course missing links. (I am not denying evolution just saying it is not yet a fact).

"Evolution" is a category. The facts are things like "mistakes sometimes occur when DNA is copied" or "the frequency of alleles within a gene pool can change from one generation to the next". Despite what you may think, you are denying evolution because you are still talking about obsolete and irrelevant notions such as "irreducible complexity" while the actual scientists have moved on to wondering (for example) whether paired or unpaired sections of ribosomal RNA change more quickly.

I was citing examples off the top of my head. It has been a while since I even looked at evolution for scientific accuracy. As it seems like the best we have for a theory I just assume someone is studying it and that they are either smarter than me or just more dedicated to this subject either way it's not my area of expertise. (Not that I have an area of expertise but I am better at some things than others).

/This entire discussion does not change the fact that the original question can be argued, therefore eliminating it from the answer this question as true or be denied the right to vote as the original poster declared.

The original question of "Does evolution exist" can not be argued from a scientific standpoint. You can argue it from a religious standpoint if you like, you can insert all sorts of weasel oppositions, but evolution itself is an observed fact. Not just observable, observed.

That's exactly the sort of thing TFA is talking about. Your pursuit of belief over fact is completely illogical.

ROFLalas, this guy really made my point. Your beliefs and understanding of facts do not change reality.

yousaywut: (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)

the universe is irrelevant. we have sufficient information (facts) here on earth to know, without any doubt whatsoever), that evolution happens. that is a FACT. we have a large number of ideas about exactly how it happens, over how long a period of time, and some of the myriad details involved.

but the year mutation of the annual flu and drug resistant aids and TB are pretty much all the proof needed that evolution happens.

/EVEN if god is causing the mutation, that doesnt change the fact that it is evolution./unless you dont understand genetic mutation and want to pretend that it doesnt exist ...

We do have enough facts to prove micro-evolution that much is true. But until a flu germ becomes ebola or a parasite macro-evolution has not been confirmed. (that I am aware of I don't actually keep up with biology sciences so I could be mistaken).

You should probably shut up before you dig yourself even deeper.

Your wrong. You're being willfully obtuse and ignorant.

Your argument basically is this:

"What if 2 + 2 actually equals FIVE, and it's only SEEMED to equal 4 all these years because some invisible, undetectable force has been hiding the truth from us, and making all of our equations work even though our math was wrong!"

2 + 2 equals FOUR. Fact. Evolution occurs. Fact.

I am not being willfully obtuse I am arguing that a theory is not a fact if it cannot be proven. Even scientifically use of the word theory does not make the entirety of the Theory of Evolution a fact. In order for it to be a fact the entirety of the theory must be (at the very least) not disproven. As we have yet to scratch the surface of what DNA/RNA code means we cannot yet call this theory a fact.

Evolution does occur on a micro scale adaptation does occur on a micro scale these are facts proven and witnessed many times over. A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed. That is why I say it is a theory in the traditional sense. If/when such a change is proven I will happily change my thoughts on the matter. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.

and Most knowing what was implied is definitely not part of the issue. I also recognized what the question was attempting to imply, however the question directly stated now or ever before so implication goes out the window and fact becomes an issue.

Well, here's how I read it:

5) there were [at the time of the invasion] and are [currently] no weapons of mass destruction in iraq

If in your opinion, that sentence read, "there were never at any time in history and are currently no weapons of mass destruction in iraq," well, you're entitled to your own opinion, yadda yadda yadda.

starsrift:yousaywut: Ivo Shandor: yousaywut: True enough but it is still a theory in the common use of the word as well. It is the best theory we have at the moment but there are certain questions that stop it from becoming fact. Such as irreducible complexity and of course missing links. (I am not denying evolution just saying it is not yet a fact).

"Evolution" is a category. The facts are things like "mistakes sometimes occur when DNA is copied" or "the frequency of alleles within a gene pool can change from one generation to the next". Despite what you may think, you are denying evolution because you are still talking about obsolete and irrelevant notions such as "irreducible complexity" while the actual scientists have moved on to wondering (for example) whether paired or unpaired sections of ribosomal RNA change more quickly.

I was citing examples off the top of my head. It has been a while since I even looked at evolution for scientific accuracy. As it seems like the best we have for a theory I just assume someone is studying it and that they are either smarter than me or just more dedicated to this subject either way it's not my area of expertise. (Not that I have an area of expertise but I am better at some things than others).

/This entire discussion does not change the fact that the original question can be argued, therefore eliminating it from the answer this question as true or be denied the right to vote as the original poster declared.

The original question of "Does evolution exist" can not be argued from a scientific standpoint. You can argue it from a religious standpoint if you like, you can insert all sorts of weasel oppositions, but evolution itself is an observed fact. Not just observable, observed.

That's exactly the sort of thing TFA is talking about. Your pursuit of belief over fact is completely illogical.

Yeah I am kinda going down the rabbit hole on this one. and My use of micro vs macro evolution was not in the original question. So I will have to switch my answer to: True as written the statement is True.

yousaywut:Evolution does occur on a micro scale adaptation does occur on a micro scale these are facts proven and witnessed many times over. A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed. That is why I say it is a theory in the traditional sense. If/when such a change is proven I will happily change my thoughts on the matter. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.

You're just being silly now. Througout recorded history or the fossil record there are no, none zero nil counterexamples to Natural Selection. If you want to stick around 30 or 40 million years though, I'll give you 3:5 odds that penguins develop gills. What do you say to a little wager - a dollar perhaps?

yousaywut:I am not being willfully obtuse I am arguing that a theory is not a fact if it cannot be proven. Even scientifically use of the word theory does not make the entirety of the Theory of Evolution a fact. In order for it to be a fact the entirety of the theory must be (at the very least) not disproven. As we have yet to scratch the surface of what DNA/RNA code means we cannot yet call this theory a fact.

Evolution does occur on a micro scale adaptation does occur on a micro scale these are facts proven and witnessed many times over. A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed. That is why I say it is a theory in the traditional sense. If/when such a change is proven I will happily change my thoughts on the matter. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.

If that's your standard of "fact", then nothing in science can ever be considered a fact. Ever. And honestly, after the "bird does not become a fish nor a dog" comment, you probably shouldn't argue about evolution anymore. I stay out of discussions of things like computer science because I don't understand the basics, but for some reason everyone thinks they're perfectly qualified to argue the validity of evolution.

IoSaturnalia:yousaywut: Evolution does occur on a micro scale adaptation does occur on a micro scale these are facts proven and witnessed many times over. A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed. That is why I say it is a theory in the traditional sense. If/when such a change is proven I will happily change my thoughts on the matter. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.

You're just being silly now. Througout recorded history or the fossil record there are no, none zero nil counterexamples to Natural Selection. If you want to stick around 30 or 40 million years though, I'll give you 3:5 odds that penguins develop gills. What do you say to a little wager - a dollar perhaps?

Sounds good:) I wish I could stick around to see evolution proven on a macro scale Cause that would be awesome.

FOXNEWS, talk radio, Breitbart, and the rest of the fascist-lite media outlets only have a captive audience because 30+ years of middle class decimation have left a large portion of this population desperate and frustrated. Working people have watched as their earning power, political clout, and pensions have been systematically looted and sold off to the highest bidder; all while the cretins at the very top have exponentially grown their own bottom lines. In an environment like this, it's no wonder that so many people ended up falling into the arms of the perpetually angry conservative media machine which gleefully tosses out a scapegoat every week. When people become desperate, they look for a savior. The sick irony is that the candidate the GOP ran in this election couldn't have possibly been a more perfect example of the type of bastard responsible for the predicament the middle class finds itself in.

The Democrats are certainly not without guilt in this equation. They have not championed the working class in this country for a very long time and have allowed the right-wing to fill in the gaps with flag-waving and petty wedge issues like gay marriage. If Republicans are guilty of manipulation, Democrats are guilty of cowardice. Both are guilty of bending to corporate money.

As hard as it may be, we have to learn to empathize with the misguided souls in our country who have been duped by the right-wing hate machine. Their retreat into a non-reality based world may seem pathetic, but the underlying reasons as to why they've done it are dead serious. A lot of people in this country have been hurting for longer than they'd care to admit, but through the skillful manipulation of media, the right-wing has told these people to direct their anger at other marginalized groups rather than the vultures who've been perpetrating economic crimes for several decades. The truth is that most of us have a lot in common with that 47% who voted for Romney whether we want to admit it or not.

IoSaturnalia:You're just being silly now. Througout recorded history or the fossil record there are no, none zero nil counterexamples to Natural Selection. If you want to stick around 30 or 40 million years though, I'll give you 3:5 odds that penguins develop gills. What do you say to a little wager - a dollar perhaps?

I'll take you up on that bet. No vertebrate above amphibians has redeveloped gills, no matter how much time it spends in the water. Whales have already been (at least partially) aquatic for over 50 myr and don't have gills, and neither did any aquatic reptiles.

Erix:yousaywut: I am not being willfully obtuse I am arguing that a theory is not a fact if it cannot be proven. Even scientifically use of the word theory does not make the entirety of the Theory of Evolution a fact. In order for it to be a fact the entirety of the theory must be (at the very least) not disproven. As we have yet to scratch the surface of what DNA/RNA code means we cannot yet call this theory a fact.

Evolution does occur on a micro scale adaptation does occur on a micro scale these are facts proven and witnessed many times over. A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed. That is why I say it is a theory in the traditional sense. If/when such a change is proven I will happily change my thoughts on the matter. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.

If that's your standard of "fact", then nothing in science can ever be considered a fact. Ever. And honestly, after the "bird does not become a fish nor a dog" comment, you probably shouldn't argue about evolution anymore. I stay out of discussions of things like computer science because I don't understand the basics, but for some reason everyone thinks they're perfectly qualified to argue the validity of evolution.

I understand the basics and was using (omg) hyperbolic examples to make a point. That standard of fact is actually used in science and math. It made for some really weird discussions during nuclear physics class.

IoSaturnalia:If you want to stick around 30 or 40 million years though, I'll give you 3:5 odds that penguins develop gills. What do you say to a little wager - a dollar perhaps?

Penguins will not develop gills. A species of penguin may possibly be the predecessor of some species which might go through a variety of genetic mutations which lead to a successful new species of animal which is aquatic and has gills.

Iraq did have some old crap from before 1991, but it wouldn't have been useful as a weapon, and it's not clear the Iraqis even knew they had it. It appears from the inspection in 2003 that they really had dismantled their WMD program and destroyed all of the contents.

I believe most people who voted for Romney fit into one of these categories:

1. People rooting for 'the team'.2. One issue voters on abortion, homosexuality, 'Christian Nation', immigration, or other issues.3. Low-information voters.4. Voting with their pocketbook "are you better off than you were four years ago".

I think that most people who voted for Obama would fit into the same four categories.

I think that very few people in this country are racist to the point of voting against Obama for that reason, but they are VERY loud, and they are encouraged by Fox News and Rush. I think that if Obama had been exactly the same except his dad had been an Afrikaaner, very few people on either side would have switched their vote.

But I do think the level of vitriol by the Stormfront types would be a lot lower.

Of course, it's not only that Obama is a much bigger liar and distorter of reality, it's that the media doesn't call him on it because they're in the tank for him. If they're not helping him lie then they're actively working to give him a pass on everything he screws up.